Thursday, 12 January 2017

I’m not sure
that anyone knows any more what Labour’s position is as a party on immigration
and freedom of movement. It’s one of the
few things on which Corbyn has actually been fairly clear and consistent; his
argument that treating it as a numbers game is a silly approach is one with
which I concur. I also agree with him
that tackling the way in which unscrupulous employers exploit migrants, and
find ways of paying them less than the minimum wage would be likely to reduce
immigration numbers in itself. (Although
I disagree with his apparent belief that controlling numbers of immigrants is a
reason for doing that – I think ending exploitation is a sufficient
justification in itself.)

But he’s
regularly being undermined by Labour MPs who are so afraid of losing votes and
seats that they are using UKIP language and policies themselves. And as we’ve seen this week, some are
desperately keen to ‘bounce’ him into changing his position. In the process, of course, they strengthen
the narrative that immigration ‘needs’ to be controlled. But what has struck me is the extent to which
Corbyn’s almost honourable stance on the issue has been described as vague and
unclear, because he refuses to say what he will do to reduce immigration as a result of rejecting the whole premise of the question.

It’s a classic
example of the Overton window in operation, and the media – including the
so-called impartial BBC – are restricting debate to a narrow band rather than
accepting that there are opinions which lie outside it. So, as far as those questioning Corbyn are
concerned, immigration is a problem, it needs to be reduced and because he
won’t say how or by how many he will reduce it, he’s being vague or
evasive. It isn’t that Corbyn hasn’t
tried very hard to be clear and consistent; it’s rather that his views don’t
fall within the narrow window in which debate is currently ‘allowed’ to take
place.

I’m sure that
the UKIP/Tory/Labour mainstream/media consensus is more than happy to exclude
any views which don’t fit their own preconceptions, but it doesn’t make for a
debate in which the question is properly and rationally considered. If only those who agree that immigration is a
problem are to be given any credibility, no real alternatives will ever be
heard. And that, in turn, strengthens
the boundaries of the window. No
surprise that immigration ends up being seen as a ‘problem’ even where in those
areas where there is none.

Sticking with
the Labour Party and immigration, I was well and truly gobsmacked listening to
Kinnock Junior pontificating on the matter on the BBC on Tuesday. He sat there, as a representative of the Labour
Party – the self-proclaimed party of working people - arguing for a two-tier
approach to the issue under which the high-paid would have complete freedom of
movement whilst the lower orders would be subject to restrictions and quotas. When Nye Bevan said that nothing was too good
for the working class, he didn’t add a list of exceptions, or talk about a
two-tier system of access to privileges; but his successors clearly believe
that there are some things to which mere oiks should not aspire. Still, it’s a timely reminder to those who
keep banging on about a ‘progressive’ alliance of just what ‘progressive’ means
to the twenty-first century Labour Party.

1 comment:

I haven't heard Kinnock the Younger's interview but he is presumably inferring that the current "colour blind, but open to those with money and/or skills" legislative framework under which the Border Force and Immigration and Nationality Directorate operates in respect of non EU/ETA nationals should apply to them post Brexit. I guess this is the default in the event of a hard Brexit, but in practice it would obviously have catastrophic consequential impacts on the Benidorm brigade. It would also be an administrative nightmare given the numbers involved and severely damage key sectors of the economy. Moreover it's just plain ridiculous to require Helle to demonstrate that she's actually going to return to Copenhagen after taking the kids to visit Daddy in London and not scarper off to go and join the illegal army of cleaners and casual labourers.

I understand that JC's personal position is that he regards the current non-EU/ETA arrangements as racist in practical effect and he is against all "racist immigration controls". It is therefore open to question if there are any measures at all he does support? Even banning entry to those convicted of criminal offences elsewhere in Europe would probably have a demonstrably racist outcome given that Roma is considered an ethnicity. JC's position is it seems to me wide open the criticism that it is simply impracticable to combine open borders with a universal welfare system, particularly a health service that is based on being completely free at point of need.

There are some useful comparisons with the debate, which John may, albeit dimily, be old enough to recall, preceding the first 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act; until which all citizen subjects of Her Majesty had enjoyed, in principle, the same automatic rights to come and settle in the mother country as Britons had done in the imperial dominions (India, Africa, Australia etc.). By the mid 1960s with travel getting cheaper and Enoch Powell playing a similar role to Farage today (albeit with more Latin and less blokish crassness) the position was clearly getting unsustainable and public sentiment was clearly uneasy both at the prospect of continued migration from African, Asian & Carribean commonwealth members and also at the implications of cutting off our 'kith & kin', including those who had fought so fiercely for their King Emperor a generation previously. There was a class divide back then too with working class voters far more openly hostile/racist than would be common today.